Posts by restlesssurfer97

Jacob Morgan said:Look, you guys have really gotten into it with this debate, but I guess without a cloud of cigarette smoke, some heavy alcohol fumes, and a crying baby in the background, we aren't ever going to reach a truly satisfying conclusion here ☕

I suppose I agree with restlesssurfer97 that the bigger issue is probably just the total lack of consensus regarding the actual definitions of the terms we're all throwing around.

In my view, the government ought to be social—maybe leaning toward a Nordic-style model rather than the way things are currently run here in the States

But then again, I also feel like the role of a social state shouldn't involve endlessly propping up massive state-run corporations that are unprofitable and unsustainable—you know, essentially saving jobs that simply can't survive in a free market environment just because politicians are terrified of losing votes in the next election. The same logic probably applies to maintaining that bloated, inefficient bureaucratic machine, too.

Something like that.

Justin James10 said:To be more precise, we should call it a "minimalist" state. After all, legal certainty is one of the absolute pillars of capitalism, isn't it? And that level of stability requires an efficient government—if not a strong one, at least!

Vekjo is actually pretty skilled when it comes to debating, he uses this classic move where he spins your own arguments around on you, basically forcing you into a corner where you're stuck defending positions you don't even actually believe in, and he probably knows the exact technical name for that specific tactic since I'm definitely not educated enough to put a label on it, but I know it when I see it. 🙂

ruggedjackal46 said:Fine, if we're playing that game, I’d compare them to a small tech startup in Silicon Valley that just landed a private billionaire owner. How do we think that turned out?

Look, I don't know the whole gritty backstory with that specific utility company, but let's just assume for the sake of argument that it went under because of bad private management—I think that's what you're getting at, right?

The real thing is, do you honestly believe the government should be stepping in and using my tax dollars to bail out a situation like this?

wiredfalcon2 said:Alright, fine. But how exactly do you think a weak government is supposed to take down some billionaire who’s basically doing whatever the hell he wants?

Give me an actual example here, like what specifically are you talking about regarding those countries we’re all trying to emulate—you know, the ones where economic freedom is way higher than what we deal with here in the States?

Honestly, thank God our government stepped in and seized control of Giant Food Corp.

ruggedjackal46 said:Rimac’s global success wouldn't even exist if his old man hadn't been that corrupt, "big government" type of politician. That stolen taxpayer money was essentially the seed capital for Rimac’s "free market entrepreneurship." It’s a classic case of "winning the market competition" in the United States.

Manchester United didn't just manifest success out of thin air; it happened within a very specific context. You're dealing with a league where half the clubs can barely make payroll, and your big suggestion is that they should all just try to mimic Manchester United? Really?

So you brought up Manchester United. Out of every single franchise on the planet, you chose Manchester United. You had the total freedom to pick any other club in the world to use as a benchmark against Inter Milan.

I honestly can't tell if you're totally missing the point or if... well, I don't even know what else to call it.

We should be looking at whatever is actually working, and frankly, those models work a whole lot better than this absolute mess we've got going on here.

brightpilot6 said:I think you're missing the point by trying to discuss "liberalization" without accounting for the specific reality of our little corner of the world.

Let's just be honest here—what exactly are we talking about when you use that word, and what does "liberalization" actually mean in your view?

Man, honestly, I feel like our perspectives are pretty much aligned on most things anyway, so I don't really see the point in sitting here and breaking down my definition of liberalization for you.

You're totally right that we have to look at everything through the lens of how chaotic this country is, but it's also true that the way things are running right now clearly isn't working, and sticking to the status quo is just a fundamentally broken way to handle it.

ruggedjackal46 said:But we aren't talking about the whole world here; we're talking about the US and American soccer. What does the financial success of Manchester United have to do with the market situation of a local outfit like Inker Zaprešić?

Man, you're totally missing the forest for the trees, because what you're doing is ignoring the whole point of what I've been preaching this entire time, which is basically that we need to stop trying to reinvent the wheel or wait around for some magical new system to drop out of the sky and just look at how Manchester United operates, you know?

ruggedjackal46 said:I’m with you on that one. Completely.

So, if we’re actually going to sit here and talk about privatizing everything, let’s be honest and look at the full scope—we’re talking healthcare, water utilities, the entire education system. Or is the plan really just to privatize those specific companies you guys have already decided are corrupt? Is that how this works?

I can't say I'm exactly shocked that you didn't give me an answer. Honestly, why would I be?

Well, if you’re going to be like that, why didn't you just educate me and lay it all out from the start? Is that too much to ask?

I honestly feel like we aren't even touching on that reality at all.

ruggedjackal46 said:I’m with you on that one. Completely.

So, if we’re actually going to sit here and talk about privatizing everything, let’s be honest and look at the full scope—we’re talking healthcare, water utilities, the entire education system. Or is the plan really just to privatize those specific companies you guys have already decided are corrupt? Is that how this works?

I can't say I'm exactly shocked that you didn't give me an answer. Honestly, why would I be?

Well, if you’re going to be like that, why didn't you just educate me and lay it all out from the start? Is that too much to ask?

Man, seriously, ruggedjackal46, what are you even getting at here, like are you trying to tell me that soccer isn't a massive business and that the whole global game basically just survives on government subsidies or something?

And now you're actually expecting me to come up with proof to show you otherwise? You're a real piece of work, 😘

brightpilot6 said:I truly cannot fathom how you fail to see that it is. It is, of course, liberalization in its American form.

That is, unless I am fundamentally misinterpreting your definition of liberalization—which I tend to view as shifting everything possible into the realm of private interest, paired with a minimal state and a strengthened individualistic mindset.

What happens when we allow private interests to run rampant in a society that lacks true democratic consciousness, one without robust institutions or enough competing factions to establish any semblance of rules through their own internal friction? Sports, and specifically soccer, provides us with the perfect illustration of that outcome.

Implementing such an idea in America would result in nothing more than the further enrichment of a tiny handful of wealthy individuals and the continued impoverishment of everyone else. Absolutely nothing changes. Politics would maintain its grip, perhaps slightly less through state-owned enterprises and slightly more through regulatory, judicial, and legislative bodies. That same group of people who call themselves the elite would simply continue doing whatever they please, just as they do now.

You seem to be living under the illusion that improvement will descend from the top down, and that it might arrive anytime soon.

In football, just like in the rest of the country, it's all about crony capitalism.
Talking about liberalization while thinking about the system we currently have is a mistake from the very beginning.

ruggedjackal46 said:Well, if we’re going to talk about this hypothetical system, we might as well discuss the hypothetical scenarios too. I'm curious how you all envision the transition to full privatization of American soccer. I'm just looking for your thoughts—it's not a trap, so why the sudden attitude?

Me, getting worked up? 🤣

Man, you're out here theorizing about stuff when there's already actual empirical evidence sitting right in front of us based on decades of real-world experience, so there isn't really anything "hypothetical" about any of this.

ruggedjackal46 said:Well, it’s going to fail because twelve clubs in a league today just can't generate enough revenue to sustain a professional setup. Not that it's exactly a tragedy—professional soccer isn't exactly a top-tier social priority—but I don't give a damn if we start applying that same logic to healthcare, water, or education. Those things can't exactly pay for themselves either, can they?

But look, we aren't even talking about healthcare, utilities, or schools here... that’s just what you guys bring up whenever we mention companies like ExxonMobil or all those other state-run entities and how much the government meddles in every single corner of the economy, stuff like Walmart, shipyards, and all that nonsense.

Are you seriously not seeing that?

ruggedjackal46 said:Sure, but if you take that power away, it doesn't just vanish into thin air. It has to go somewhere. Who gets it?

Look at how Mamić built an entire empire using taxpayer money, leveraging ties to both local and national politics alongside the sheer incompetence of inefficient government agencies. 🤷 A club with finances comparable to a small startup wouldn't stand a chance in a true free market without the blind, corrupt patronage of the city and the state propping it up just like it is now.

Alright, let's say public entities stop funding soccer and LA Galaxy becomes a standard corporation. What actually happens next?

In my view, this "general privatization" being pushed is specifically about reducing political patronage and minimizing influence over various sectors of business and daily life as much as possible.

Some higher authority—whether public or private, held by a community or an individual—is always going to exert influence over different spheres of business and living. In other words, our lives will always be politicized, whether those decisions are made in Congress or on the board of directors at Walmart. The only real question is: who gets to pull the strings?

I'm not really sure I follow what you're getting at with that question, man.

I mean, you clearly watch the sport, so you already know exactly how things play out once clubs start running on private capital instead of taxpayer money.

So, what's the actual point you're trying to make here?

I’ve honestly got this nagging feeling that most of these debates aren't even actually about having different opinions, but more about how everyone is just using totally different definitions for things like 'deregulation' and 'the government.'

ruggedjackal46 said:Look, I’m not hunting for perfection. I’m looking for a coherent vision of a system that offers more than just complaining about how things are right now. It shouldn't just boil down to "well, it can't get any worse than this." Because honestly, every time I ask how total deregulation might actually solve anything, all I ever hear is that HAC and Amtrak are riddled with corruption. "Proven to be better"? Well, I’m asking you—and Justin James10, and whoever else wants to chime in—to please show me the proof. It's not that I'm blind to it; it's just that I haven't seen a single actual attempt to prove it.

Let me lay it out simply for you again, you basically have Option A and Option B.

Option A is a proven, absolute fast track to disaster.

Option B—even though it’s been shown to work in plenty of developed nations—doesn't come with a 100% guarantee of being better, let's put it that way, since I can't sit here and mathematically prove to you that Option B results in progress, even though I’m totally convinced it does and it works in most major democracies.

But you keep picking Option A. And honestly, that’s exactly why we’re stuck in this rut, where we all know things are broken, but nobody is actually ready to change, nobody wants to deal with the shifts, and nobody wants to push through the reforms. So we just stay here and rot.

wiredfalcon2 said:Look, you don't actually live in Miami like I do. I still hang out with opposition politicians who can't stand the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, plus my job and interests basically revolve around studying politics—specifically local stuff. What I can tell you, without any spin, is that everyone tied to Opar because they work in his council or public offices, and used to be connected to Baldasar—who was a worse mayor—and Kerum, is supposedly worlds apart from him.

What list of research? Name them. You can't just make categorical claims without proof; that's just talking nonsense, not an argument. For all I know, I have enough research to prove you're a total bear instead of a human being.

So, you don't even know a single other state-owned company besides ExxonMobil and Caltrans, since you can't name ten off the top of your head.🤣

Unaccountable questions:

Alright, let's see Justin James10 explain how the government is to blame for these scenarios:

- You get hired at a company where the boss says you'll have a 3-month probation, then a one-year contract if you perform well—but after 3 months, he praises you, then just gives you another 3-month extension instead of what was agreed upon?
- You do the work as a subcontractor, but it becomes impossible to actually get paid?
- Your boss won't let you take your vacation when you want to, even though you're legally entitled to it?
- Your boss doesn't pay you the salary you agreed on?
- A private entrepreneur you bought supplies from for your business delivers products that are lower quality than what was promised during the deal?

How exactly would you fix any of that?

And honestly, what does the existence of shitty bosses in the private sector even have to do with the topic we're talking about?

ruggedjackal46 said:But look, Yellow and his crowd aren't saying pure capitalism is somehow "less evil" than the mess we have now; they're claiming it’s the actual solution. My question is: how? Honestly, I am completely fed up with this whole "choosing the lesser of two evils" argument. Everyone becomes a PhD expert when it's time to list everything wrong with the current system, but when it comes to actually proposing a fix, the best anyone can come up with is, "Well, let's just pick something slightly less bad," or "Let's just hand the keys over to private corporations." Sorry, but that doesn't strike me as a solution—especially since, as ZZ pointed out, the biggest private players in this country are usually tied at the hip to the same corrupt politicians.

So, basically, what you're saying is we're just waiting around for some flawless utopia to arrive, and until then, we'll just keep grinding through this absolute dumpster fire of a system because the one that's actually proven to work better isn't perfect either.

Is that the gist of it?

brightpilot6 said:The core issue lies in deep-seated corruption and a general lack of public awareness regarding our right to demand even a modicum of decent management within our own communities.

I honestly fail to see what kind of "systemic reform" could possibly alter that fundamental reality.

If we want a glimpse of what total liberalization would look like in a broken society devoid of any democratic conscience, we need only look at professional soccer. In that arena, we don't deal with state-run clubs; instead, we see highly capable entrepreneurs like Mamić and Mickey competing in a "free market" that is conveniently regulated by their own close associates. And based on how much our sport has flourished because of it, one can only assume we're doing everything perfectly.

So you think the USSF and American soccer in general are examples of liberalization?

ZZ, I honestly can't believe you can be this incredibly wrong.

wiredfalcon2 said:There’s a massive difference between supporting the concept of a state existing at all and supporting whatever specific administration happens to be running things. I definitely don't support the latter. But the idea that a tiny, libertarian-style government is the magic fix for our problems? Not happening. As far as I can see, having an organized state structure, taxes, and a republican system of governance is still the best way to run a society.

The US has plenty of issues, obviously. No debate there. The reasons why things are such a mess are complicated, and thinking privatization is a silver bullet won't change anything because the same rot that plagues the public sector usually finds its way into the private sector too. A country's success isn't really about whether taxes are high or low, or how big the government is. It's about social cooperation. Where people actually work together, society thrives because there’s trust. When there's trust, you can plan for the future. When you can plan, you actually make progress.

Guys like Justin James10 will tell you—if something isn't profitable, it shouldn't exist. The problem is, a lot of stuff isn't "profitable," but it's incredibly useful for everyone. Like a municipal water filtration plant. It doesn't turn a profit. In fact, between setup costs and maintenance, it just burns through money (which then gets patched up by the budget and taxes).

To build actual trust and cooperation, American society needs to focus on becoming fairer—and that means having a legal system that's both just and efficient. We need honest, streamlined public procurement processes.

I can't recall the exact name of the study, but two American political scientists gave a killer diagnosis of what happens when a public system gets gutted—like what happened in Washington, D.C. under Milomir Bandić. Without him (and his crew), you can't get anything done in D.C., because he broke the standard system and replaced it with a parallel one where he's the only one who matters. It creates this illusion that he's this indispensable guy who fixes everything, unlike the "sluggish" official system. The trick is that the system is sluggish *because* of him. It's the oldest move in the book: manufacture a crisis just so you can show up as the savior. That's why people vote for guys like him; they think everything will collapse without them because they've lost faith in the institutions. But the idea that public services would magically get better if we privatized everything—only for those contracts to go to Pripuz and his buddies—is just absurd.

See, man, nobody can really argue with what you wrote here, but at the same time, it doesn't do much good because you're talking about theories. They might be 100% correct, but they don't actually offer a roadmap for solutions.
The reality is that the most advanced societies are usually the ones with the most economic freedom. Why bring up water filtration, but stay silent on things like shipyards or the interstate highway system?

So, tell me, how exactly would you handle the mess with the petrochemical plants, the shipyards, or the highways?

A Jewish star?